Thursday, March 06, 2008

Turn the dummy voters away: Call me elitist, but after watching the primaries thus far, the least America could do is have a minimum IQ requirement in order to vote.

Looking at General Social Survey data, I am troubled about the number of dumb people who vote. In 2004, 27.3% of voters had IQs under 92: 27.4% of those who voted for Kerry, and 27.0% of those who voted for Bush.

The votes of those people carried almost SIX times the weight of American voters with IQs over 125 who were only 4.9% of the total. (5.8% of Bush voters were 125+; 4.1% of Kerry's).

Of course, the smart ones voted for the same two yahoos the dumb ones voted for, but at least they knew a few things about the candidates. I'm proud to say that I didn't vote for either one of them, and I ain't opting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum or Tweedledebbie this time around either.

8 comments:

A fine idea. But what is the IQ cut-off? Let's face it, certain races have lower average IQs. A greater % of brown/black people than white/asian people won't be voting if the IQ criteria is established. Cries of racism will be very loud (yes, louder than they are now). There used to be literacy tests for voting, but those don't exist any more(too bad).

This is why some of us would rather have a large white majority populace and to stop letting in little brown people with IQ's that average 85-90 instead of 100 or so.

The Greek city states that were the first to use "democracy" wouldn't have been anything like they were if it were aboriginals who lived there instead. Self government is for thinking people........................................................................yeah, yeah....I know, Im such a racist

Caucuses seem to help with good enfranchisement, if that term makes sense. The requisite level of good citizenship, which correlates with I.Q., is quite high for a voting system that may demand an hour or two of one's time. On the Republican side, the *stars*, Giuliani and McCain, always did poorly. Romney did the best and even Ron Paul was given a fair shake.

Hmmm...here's a problem: you could argue low-IQ people have their own interests that need representation. For example, restricting voting by IQ would likely increase relative support for open borders because high-IQ people have less to fear from Mexican immigration (they have their own worries about outsourcing programming jobs to India, but that's something else entirely); Mexicans tend disproportionately to take jobs that require less education.

Trust me, you don't want this. If you recall Sigma's work, high-IQ people tend to be more libertarian (economically conservative, socially liberal) and that ain't good for paleo-ism.

What an imbecilic thought process. Since when has a higher IQ guaranteed somone was smarter or more informed? I had a conversation with a university professor from Carleton last week that was scary. Her elitist carriage and arrogance was appalling. The political opinions she was spouting were juvenile at best. As a kicker she insisted that the Ottawa Citisen was the ONLY well-informed newspaper politically. It was mind-numbing. I wouldn't trust a vote to this well-educated, high I.Q. woman for anything more important than Canadian Idol.

We already have something like this but on a more skewed scale and adding the factors of wealth, ambition and well-adjusted personality to the IQ metric.

The super wealthly and the very ambitious, personable and high IQ people pretty much control culture, media and thus information/thought for the masses for their ends (open boarders, PC ideology, and the like).

Profile

"The creation myth was the essential bond that held the tribe together. It provided its believers with a unique identity, commanded their fidelity, strengthened order, vouchsafed law, encouraged valor and sacrifice, and offered meaning to the cycles of life and death. No tribe could survive long without the meaning of its existence defined by a creation story. The option was to weaken, dissolve, and die." ~ E.O. Wilson